Why didn't Jesus appear to his mother?

[Shaker]

Citation needed.

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

My emphasis, but otherwise exactly as printed.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Exactly, only a misogynist would come up with something like that.

Really. Ok, lets see what else this alleged misogynist wrote

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Do you know Floo that John 3 v 17 says that God did not send His Son into the world?

For God did not send his Son into the world

So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?

[Nearly Sane]

Really. Ok, lets see what else this alleged misogynist wrote

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Do you know Floo that John 3 v 17 says that God did not send His Son into the world?

For God did not send his Son into the world

So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?

Why did you ignore Shaker's post?

[Gordon]

So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?

Easy-peasy - people.

You're confusing what the Bible says with how it has been used by people, especially in social and political terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy-peasy - people.

You're confusing what the Bible says with how it has been used by people, especially in social and political terms.

Smacks of a kind of fallacy of hind sight where of course it's obvious that something was going to happen.
How did atheism come about easy Peasy People. Unless you think of yourself as speshul.

[Shaker]

Why did you ignore Shaker's post?

Because - I suspect - the injunction for husbands to love their wives doesn't override or contradict the previous passage where wives are told to submit to their husbands in everything as he would like to think. In the marriage service it's wives who vow to obey and to serve [sic] their husbands, not vice versa. This woman is enjoined to be faithful and obedient to her husband.

They are after all - from elsewhere in the NT, I would add - the weaker vessel who should learn in silence with all subjection [...]I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence; For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And so forth.

[Gordon]

Smacks of a kind of fallacy of hind sight where of course it's obvious that something was going to happen.

History does tend to involve hindsight, Vlad - else it wouldn't be history.

How did atheism come about easy Peasy People.

Just as easy-peasily, Vlad: just people recognising that the arguments to date offered in support of supernatural agency all fail.

Unless you think of yourself as speshul.

Not I: nothing 'speshul' about recognising crap arguments - lot's of people can (but not all people).

[jeremyp]

Why would she have fared better with Paul's take on it? He didn't seem to value women very highly.

Not true.

Have a read of Romans chapter 16. Paul names and praises several women as being important and active in the nascent church, including Junia, to whom he gives the title Apostle.

It's true that some of the later Pauline letters show a much less enlightened attitude, towards women, but Paul didn't write them.

[jeremyp]

Ephesians 5:22-24
My emphasis, but otherwise exactly as printed.

Ephesians was not written by Paul.

[jeremyp]

Ephesians are attributed to Paul.

So what?

A passage from Ephesians was given as an example of Paul being misogynistic. It doesn't matter how much you attribute the passage to Paul, he didn't write it, so the example is invalid.

[jeremyp]

So who did write it then?

Nobody knows.

There are thirteen letters in the NT that are traditionally attributed to Paul. Of these, most scholars accept that seven were actually written by the same person. The other six are effectively forgeries.

[jeremyp]

If nobody knows, surely it is speculation the others were forgeries.

Although nobody knows who did write the other six letters, there is a lot of evidence that they were not written by Paul.

[Spud]

Ephesians was not written by Paul.

Except the last bit, of course.

[Spud]

Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?

[Gordon]

Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?

Perhaps it would be good for business.

[Sebastian Toe]

Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?

Do you mean, why would a forger write in such a way as to make the reader think it was written by the person that the forger was trying to emulate?

I'm sure I can't figure that one out.
 Can you?

[Spud]

Do you mean, why would a forger write in such a way as to make the reader think it was written by the person that the forger was trying to emulate?

I'm sure I can't figure that one out.
 Can you?

Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.

Then you have the mention of Tychicus who would tell the church at Ephesus how Paul was doing so as to encourage them (6:21). In 2 Timothy 4:12 Paul says, 'But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.' Is 2 Timothy also forged?

[Sebastian Toe]

Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.

That is exactly what a good forger would do.
Looks like he fooled the early church eh?

[Gordon]

Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.

Effective forgery only works if it passes for genuine, even though it isn't: would you say that it might be easier to con people who are already predisposed to accept the forgery at face value?

Then you have the mention of Tychicus who would tell the church at Ephesus how Paul was doing so as to encourage them (6:21). In 2 Timothy 4:12 Paul says, 'But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.' Is 2 Timothy also forged?

Who knows: it is a risk though, and one that would have to be assessed - how would you go about doing that?

[Dicky Underpants]

Ephesians are attributed to Paul.

As is 1Timothy, which Shaker quoted and contains some of the worst misogynistic sentiments in the NT. As Jeremy has pointed out, the authorship of a lot of these is to say the least highly suspect. In fact, no scholars except died in the wool fundamentalists think the Pastoral Epistles (inc 1Timothy) were written by Paul  (though you seem to have a stubborn desire to claim them for Paul yourself - gawd knows why). The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching.
Both I and Jeremy have mentioned the last chapter of Romans - now ask yourself this: would an out-and-out misogynist send a woman to a distant congregation of the Church, entrusting her to hand on his teaching? (Phoebe) And ask for her to be received 'as befits one of the saints', forsooth?

Not to mention Junia....

[Walter]

OKAY Floo,


what's the punch line ?

[Spud]

Effective forgery only works if it passes for genuine, even though it isn't: would you say that it might be easier to con people who are already predisposed to accept the forgery at face value?

Who knows: it is a risk though, and one that would have to be assessed - how would you go about doing that?

The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:

Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.

Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2372634-christians-its-time-you-knew-truth-6.html#ixzz4ynABY33X

?

[Gordon]

The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:

Unable to: I have no basis to check if what is said in these letters contains mistakes or lies.

Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.

Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger. [/size]

Nope - this 'reasoning' fails on more than one front. The basis given for rejecting the letter is a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw and then there is the appeal involving what Thessalonians 2 says followed, again, by another presumption about what 'the church at Ephesus' would or wouldn't accept.

Of course forgery isn't the only risk - even if this letter wasn't forged it could contain mistakes or deliberate lies: so how would you eliminate these risks?

[Spud]

The basis given for rejecting the letter is a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw

I don't quite follow this.
Do you mean, 'The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
Or, 'The basis given for accepting the letter as genuine is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
? Thanks.
I'd say the second sentence makes more sense if you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say.

[Gordon]

I don't quite follow this.
Do you mean, 'The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
Or, 'The basis given for accepting the letter as genuine is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
? Thanks.

The former, since that is what he seems to be saying.

I'd say the second sentence makes more sense if you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say.

Then you'd be wrong, since I'm saying the risks of lies or mistakes are far bigger issues.